6.  The applicants, Triplu-Tudor S.R.L. and Tudor-Auto S.R.L., are two companies incorporated under Moldovan law.
7.  On 18 November 1993 the State Service for the Supervision of Insurance by the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Moldova (“the Service”) (Serviciul de Stat pentru supravegherea asigurărilor pe lângă Ministerul Finanţelor al Republicii Moldova) registered the insurance company Tudor and Co. S.R.L., founded by three private parties T.N., V.N. and L.R. (“the founders”). On an unspecified date the founders lodged with the Service a request to register two other insurance companies, which on 3 November 1995 were registered as Triplu-Tudor S.R.L. and Triplu‑Tudor‑Auto S.R.L. They also sought the registration of changes in the companies’ founders, namely the replacement of T.N. and V.N. with other founders, and in one of the company’s names from Triplu-Tudor-Auto S.R.L. into Tudor-Auto S.R.L. On 25 and 27 December 1995 and on 11 January 1996 the Service granted their requests.
8.  On 10 June 1997 the Government adopted Decision no. 533 “on certain regulatory measures of insurance activity” (see paragraph 31 below), according to which insurance companies had to fulfil certain formalities and to obtain new registration certificates before 1 August 1997.
9.  On 31 July 1997 Triplu-Tudor S.R.L. and Tudor-Auto S.R.L. submitted to the Service the required documents together with the evidence of increase in their statutory capital up to 300,000 Moldovan lei (MDL), (65,197 euros (EUR) at the time), as provided for by section 1 of decision no. 533, and requested to register the changes in the constitutional documents and to be issued with new registration certificates for insurance activity (“the certificates“). Since the Service refused to comply with their requests, on an unspecified date each of the applicant companies brought actions against the Service, seeking to order it to register the requested changes and to issue new registration certificates.
10.  On 15 January 1998, during the proceedings before the first-instance court, the Service only registered the changes in the companies’ statutory capital.
11.  On 31 March 1998 the Chişinău Economic Court ruled in favour of the applicant companies and ordered the Service to issue them with new registration certificates. On 15 April 1998 the applicant companies were issued with enforcement warrants which stated “for immediate enforcement”. The Service appealed.
12.  On 24 June 1998 the Appellate Chamber of the Chişinău Economic Court rejected the appeals of the Service in both cases. No further appeals were lodged and the judgments became final and enforceable.
13.  The Service took a number of steps designed to either annul the final judgments or to prevent their enforcement. On 21 July 1998 and 1 June 1999 the Service annulled its decisions of 25 and 27 December 1995 and of 11 January 1996.
14.  On 1 December 1998 the Service requested a stay of the enforcement proceedings, which was dismissed by the Chişinău Economic Court on 12 February 1999.
15.  On an unspecified date it asked for a revision of the judgments of 31 March 1998. On 15 July 1999 the Chişinău Economic Court dismissed the request as unfounded.
16.  On 8 February 2000 the Service lodged a new request for a revision of the judgments of 31 March 1998. By a final decision of 6 September 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the request.
17.  In a separate set of proceedings, on 28 September 1999 the Rîşcani District Court fined the Director of the Service for failure to comply with the judgments in favour of the applicant companies. Following an appeal lodged by the Director, on 4 July 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgment of 28 September 1999 and discontinued the proceedings against him as statute-barred. Nevertheless, in a separate decision of the same date the Supreme Court of Justice specifically addressed the Ministry of Finance about the need to enforce the final judgments in order to avoid subsequent damage to State interests.
18.  On 24 January 2001 the Service issued each of the applicant companies with certificates, but the Minister of Finance did not sign them so that they had no legal force. In February 2001 the applicant companies requested a bailiff to fully enforce the judgments and to obtain the signature of the Minister of Finance on the certificates.
19.  On 18 May and 4 June 2001 the State Registration Chamber requested the applicant companies to submit certain documents in order to re-register the companies, as provided for by a new law on State registration of enterprises. Since the requests specifically stated that the applicant companies should have submitted the originals of their registration certificates, the latter failed to comply with the requests.
20.  The judgments of 31 March 1998 have not been enforced to date.
21.  On 19 April 2000 T.P. (it appears from the case file that the founder T.N., see paragraph 7 above, had changed his name) lodged a request to join the proceedings which ended with the final judgment of 31 March 1998 as a third party. He claimed that he was the owner of a 50% share in the applicant company and that the changes to the applicant company’s statutory documents, introduced on 11 January 1996, had been adopted without his knowledge.
22.  By a final decision of 20 September 2000 the Appellate Chamber of the Economic Court dismissed T.P.’s request as unsubstantiated.
23.  On 6 October 2003 T.P. lodged with the Economic Court of Appeal a request for a revision of the judgment of 31 March 1998, relying mainly on the same grounds as in his request of 19 April 2000. On 8 December 2004 the Economic Court of Appeal dismissed the request as unsubstantiated and statute-barred, since it had been lodged more than three months after the date on which T.P. had found out about “new relevant circumstances”. T.P. lodged an appeal on points of law.
24.   On 31 March 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld his appeal on points of law and quashed the judgment of 31 March 1998. It ordered a full re-examination of the case. The Supreme Court did not deal with the issue of the three-month time-limit for lodging the revision request.
25.  The outcome of the reopened proceedings is unknown.